Truth Magazine

By Wayne Goforth

It has been argued by our institutional friends that “no one believed the things presently taught by the anti movement prior to the 1950’s.” Thomas B. Warren states this in his “Lectures on Church Cooperation” as well as did Bill Jackson in his lecture on “The Challenge of Anti-ism.” Unfortunately I have heard sound brethren claim, “No one believed or practiced the things the liberals now do before the ’50’s.” The truth, as it tends to be, is between these two claims. There were those who believe both sides of the issues from the earliest days of the restoration. While we realize that these men were not God, it is nonetheless interesting to notice how old and how serious the question of cooperation is.

As early as 1831 Walter Scott, Alexander Campbell and others met to discuss Cooperation. This would be a hot topic of discussion for another twenty years. Campbell believed that since the Bible is silent as to the cooperation of churches, that we are free to devise any means to so do and place it in the heavy laden basket of expediencies. Not all of the early restorationists were in agreement with Campbell. This belief of Campbell later led him to advocate the missionary societies using the same arguments. Campbell could see little or no difference between the church local and the church universal and thus he sought to engage all local congregations in single works and thus enact the church universal. He believed the church universal was made up of all the local congregations rather than all the saved, and most questions of the issues result from this misunderstanding to this day. By 1849 he called for a “more efficient” means of cooperating by having delegates from every congregation attend a general convention. This was soon to develop into the societies. It is to be realized that most who were against the use of the instrument at that time were for the society, and most who were anti society were for the instrument. Thus a battle soon ensued. T.M. Henley criticized the society and offered an alternative:

When any church wishes to send out an evangelist, and is unable to sustain him in the field, she may invite her sister congregations to cooperate with her.

He thus became the first to advocate the overseeing church arrangement of mission work. David Lipscomb was also against the type of cooperation advocated by Henley Lipscomb believed the sponsoring church was too big and resembled the society too much. This plan would be rejected for a while in favor of the society until 1866. Ben Franklin attacked the society in his American Christian Review, at which time the society temporarily condescended to the “Louisville Plan.” This form of sponsoring church cooperation would also be attacked by Franklin in another year. Those few, such as Franklin, who were against both the instrument and the society were also against the church using any human institution to carry out the work of the church. Those early opposed to institutionalism included Tolbert Fanning, Jacob Creath, Franklin as mentioned, and others. It was realized that the same arguments used on the behalf of those advocating the society were the same ones used for those advocating institutionalism, that is, the all-sufficiency of the church and the question of authority and silence of the Scriptures which has remained the real question over the years. The real question was not then nor is it now simply just to use societies or other human institutions, it is a much deeper question, that concerning our attitude of the authority of the Scriptures.

In 1855, Fanning established the Gospel Advocate to deal with both sides of the question of cooperation. Fanning wrote:

In establishing the Gospel Advocate, I determine to give the subject of cooperation a thorough examination. I do not pretend to say how it has been wrought about, but I have for years believed that a change must take place in our views of cooperation. . .

These early preachers placed much emphasis upon education. Many a liberal preacher has pointed this out to attempt to show that the church supported institutions even during those years of the restoration, and that this shows that the church in this period practiced the church support of human institutions, and thus cooperated in this manner. Even if this were the case, it would not prove the practice to be scriptural. Yes many schools and colleges were established during those years, but were viewed as an adjunct of the home and not the church. By 1831 P.S. Fall established a girls school. Campbell established Buffalo Seminary in 1818, and Bethany College opened its doors in 1841. Many well known preachers were on the board and taught in this enterprise. Robert Richardson and Jacob Creath were two examples of such. Remember that we have already stated that Jacob Creath was set against the church support of human institutions! Campbell himself had donated the land for the school, and individual contributions of endowments were promised along with the standard tuition fees. In fact, when Campbell opposed Burnet’s suggestion for a Bible society, Burnet reminded Campbell that he had already established one institution, Bethany College. Campbell told Burnet that the natures of the two institutions were altogether different. The college was a private institution, established with private funds, whereas the Bible society was a brotherhood work supported by a church treasury. Thus we cannot find the church in this period cooperating in the support of “Christian colleges.”

Conclusion

One wonders what possible arguments against the missionary societies our institutional friends have to offer, seeing the two arguments used in its behalf, it is doing the churches work and it is an expediency, are the same as the liberals use in the support of their institutions and overseeing method of mission work. Though these men were not inspired, the early leaders who stood against both the society and the instrument were also against the church support of any human institution. These brethren did at least seek to be consistent.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 24, p. 754
December 18, 1986

By Irvin Himmel

Wearing Out Our Welcome

Withdraw thy foot from thy neighbor’s house; lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee (Prov. 25:17).

My first acquaintance with this proverb was during my freshman year in college. Some of the boys whose dormitory room was down the hall from mine had posted Solomon’s wise words on their door.

Value of Visiting

In this age when more and more people are making their lives TV-centered rather than Christ-centered, the disposition to visit is declining. Christians cannot afford to lose sight of the value of visiting.

(1) To get acquainted. In some congregations there are members who never visit in the homes of other members, consequently they know each other only in a casual way. A visitation committee sounds too formal and a bit artificial, but I confess that I had rather see somebody doing some visiting than nobody. We need to get acquainted with new members and prospective members.

(2) For social purposes. By nature we are social creatures. We need the association of other people. Individuals who isolate themselves from the company of others are missing out on friendships that enrich life.

(3) To teach or admonish. There are many who need instruction from the word of God. They are not getting it in church services because they are not attending those services. There are backsliders and negligent people who need to be admonished Calling on others to teach or admonish them is a noble work. Some can be reached through personal visits who will never be reached in other ways.

(4) To aid sick and shut-ins. Some elderly people need regular visits. They need help to do their shopping, house cleaning, etc. Some have prolonged illnesses that keep them confined. They appreciate visits to cheer them and encourage them. It is easy to forget the aged and shut-ins. This we must not do. Visits to people in the hospital should be brief and in strict accordance with hospital rules.

(5) To show personal interest. When someone has lost a loved one, a visit to express sympathy may be in order. When it is sensed that someone is despondent or having a serious problem, a visit from a friend can be helpful. A brief visit to welcome a newcomer may be long remembered. There are times when it means so much just to know that others care.

Visitation Without Vexation

Too frequent visiting of an acquaintance, or staying too long during a visit, can be annoying. People who appreciate another’s interest in them resent being smothered. A welcome visit can be turned into an unwelcome intrusion.

Blessed is the man who can visit his neighbor as a friend, not as a pest! it is better that one’s neighbor rejoice over his visit than over his termination of a visit!

Good manners, courtesy, and respect for the time and privacy of a friend should govern our visiting his home. “There should be a sacred reserve of a delicate mutual respect even in the most intimate relations of friendship” (E. Johnson).

The proverb under consideration is translated as follows in the New International Version: “Seldom set foot in your neighbor’s house – too much of you, and he will hate you.”

The principle of the proverb will apply to telephone calls. Some people like to visit by phone. They call a neighbor or a friend, not for anything important, but only to chat. An occasional call of this type may be appreciated, but too many such calls can be a nuisance.

He who is vigilant in his visiting avoids vexing his neighbor. If too much visiting makes a neighbor feel like a victim, the visitor may be viewed as a villain.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 24, p. 746
December 18, 1986

By Tom M. Roberts

Introduction: Many states are now investigating gambling as a source of revenue. (Texas defeated part-mutual betting May 6, 1978 but it is back as an issue at this time. The Speaker of the House in Texas is a member of the church but on record as favoring gambling.) Many people look at forms of gambling (bingo, lottery) with favor.

Some say “Politics in the pulpit” when we preach against it but this is a moral issue that must be dealt with forthrightly. Other moral issues that some want left alone: abortion, pornography, etc. We must preach the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27) both “in season and out” (2 Tim. 4:2).

I What is gambling?

A. Many Christians not prepared to deal with the basic issue (some oppose large wagers but will place small bets with friends).

B. Definition: “To play or game for money or other stakes; to hazard; wager, betting on the result of a game” (Webster).

C. Built into gambling is a “loss” principle: winners win only when losers lose. Illustrate:

1. 5 people put up $100 each on a bet.

a. The “house” gets $100 off the top for their take.

b. 1 man wins $400.

c. 4 men lose all. Remember: winners win only when losers lose.

2. Farming (often used by proponents of gambling) is not a corollary.

a. God ordained that men should eat bread by “sweat of thy face” (Gen. 3:19).

b. There is no built in “loss principle” in farming.

c. Rather, God’s law built into seeds is that seeds always produce more than the seed that is planted! This is the “harvest” principle.

3. The Stock Market is not a corollary.

a. The Stock Market is a source of funds to finance business enterprise.

b. It does not operate on a “loss principle” but a “work principle.”

c. An enterprise uses money invested by stock holders to increase its business and to repay a profit to the investor.

d. To illustrate:

(1) 5 people put up $100 each by purchasing stock.

(2) A corporation uses this as capital to expand, enlarge, etc.

(3) On services rendered (work performed), the corporation makes a profit.

(4) A dividend (profit earned) is paid to the investor.

II. What is wrong with gambling?

A. It is covetousness (desire for money that belongs to another; he must lose it for you to gain it): Col. 3:5,6; Eph. 5:5; Lk. 12:15.

B. Violates labor principle: Eph. 4:28 (gambling: a form of stealing).

C. Cannot harmonize with Matt. 7:12: the “Golden Rule. “

D. Violation of law of love: Matt. 22:39; 1 Cor. 13:4-6.

E. Involves evil associations: 1 Cor. 15:33 (Gambling attracts mafia, etc.).

F. It will destroy influence: Matt. 7:17-19.

G. Its fruit is evil: Mt. 7:17-19.

H. It leads away from God: Mt. 6:24.

I. It appeals to weaknesses in man and becomes addictive: Phil. 4:8; destroys self-control: 2 Pet. 1:6.

Guardian of Truth XXX: 24, p. 747
December 18, 1986

By S. Leonard Tyler

The story of Jesus’ healing the blind man of John 9 offers us a great illustration of one who knows Jesus as the Son of God. After the healing, the miracle was so recognized that no one, who accepted the man as the one who was blind, could doubt for a minute the greatness of the miracle. This is true of all the miracles of our Lord and His apostles. Miracles were performed to prove that Jesus was indeed the Son of God and the apostles were men of God. If the miracles were rejected or doubted, where was the proof? Surely, a great miracle had been performed and even his neighbors inquire of him, “How were thine eyes opened?” (Jn.9:10) And he answered them, “A man that is called Jesus made clay, and anointed mine eyes, and said unto me, Go to the pool of Siloam, and wash: and I went and washed, and I received sight.”

They then took him to the Pharisees who also asked, how he received his sight? He told them the same story of how Jesus healed him. They questioned Jesus’ being of God and even branded the healed man as a hardened sinner but none could question the reality of the miracle. They rejected the facts because they refused to believe in Jesus Christ as God’s Son. They, as it were, stopped their ears, closed their eyes, their hearts waxed gross, and were hardened.

They sought out his parents and inquired of them, “Is this your son whom ye say was born blind?” They answered, “We know that this is our son, and that he was born blind.” They did not know by what means that he could see or would not admit it. The Pharisees returned to the healed man and re-examined him. They branded Jesus as a hard sinner. The healed man explained that God did not hear or answer sinner’s prayers. And stated, “Since the beginning of the world such a thing as opening the eyes of one born blind was never heard of. If this man had not come from God, he could have done nothing.” They refused to be taught by such a sinner as they classified the healed man of being. They cast him out.

Jesus came to him and asked him, “‘Do you believe in the Son of man?’ ‘Who is he, sir, that I may believe on him?’ Jesus replied, ‘It is he who is now speaking to you.’ ‘I do believe, Sir,’ said the man, and he prostrated himself at his feet.” The King James Version puts it, “And he worshiped him.” To know Jesus is to commit oneself to Him. Do you know Jesus to be worthy of your commitment for life?

One must believe in Jesus before he can accept Him and that faith comes by hearing God’s word (Rom. 10:17). But that is why the Bible is written and the word is to be preached to every creature, the whole creation, to produce faith in Jesus Christ as God’s Son and man’s Savior (John 20:30-31). The gospel is God’s power unto salvation (Rom. 1:16-17). Unless one believes the message of the gospel of Christ, he can not really believe in Jesus as the Son of God (Heb. 4:2). Faith in Jesus produces a continuous life of faith. It is the “obedience of faith,” a life of faith, that leads one to Christ and holds him in the way of the Lord (1 Cor. 5:7; Heb. 11:1,6; 12:1-2). If one loses his faith or turns from the Lord, he can expect nothing from the Lord (Heb. 3:12) but, on the other hand, if one is faithful to the Lord, he will be blessed forever (Heb. 10:38-39).

How can this work? One must hear God’s word and believe in Christ before he can obey the Lord (Heb. 11: 1,6). The Word of God is so powerful and revealing that is the substance, evidence, sustaining source, and power of our faith. It is God’s message of faith (Heb. 11:1; 4:2). God’s word is so powerful, convincing, overwhelming and life challenging, even so uplifting into immorality, eternal peace and joy in the hope of life after death (Jn. 5:28-29; Rev. 20:11-15). It is true.

To Know Jesus

To know Jesus is to love Him, His word and all that His word teaches. If one is compelled to believe that Jesus is God’s Son, the Savior of all men through the message of the word, surely, he will fall deeply in love with the truth, God’s word. If you love the Lord, will you not love His word and treasure its holy precepts above any message of man. David’s attitude toward the Lord was sustained by his attitude toward His word. He said, “For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven . . . . O how love I thy law! It is my- meditation all the day . . . . Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. . ., I hate vain thoughts: but thy law do I love” (Psa. 119:89, 97, 105, 113). Upon reading David’s attitude toward the word of Almighty God, no one will be shocked to hear his prayer, “Let the words of my mouth, and the meditations of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, 0 Lord my strength and my redeemer” (Psa. 19:14).

David’s attitude of love and respect for the word of the Lord was so deeply impressed upon his heart that he evaluates the man of God not as only refusing the ungodly ways and lives of the wicked but as one whose “delight is in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day and night” (Psa. 1:2). His delight and meditation is in the word of the Lord. Why? He knew and understood his Lord; read Psalms 139 and you can well understand the last two verses: “Search me, 0 God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts: And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.”

Do you know the Lord in faith, in obedience and forgiveness (Rom. 5:1; 6:17-18; Col. 2:12; 3:1-4)? Then, surely, you love His word and delight in it. It will furnish the man of God unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The story is told of a young lady who read a book containing material in which she was interested. But having completed the reading she passed her opinion upon it as being very dry and thoroughly boring. Later in her life, she met a young man and fell in love with him. She soon learned that he was the author of the book which she had thrown aside as dry and boring. She searched out the book and reread it. This time her opinion was expressed, “This is the best written and most interesting book that I have ever read.” Why the difference? She knew and loved the author.

Is this our problem in creating an interest in reading and studying God’s word? Are we acquainted with and know the Book, The Bible, but have not come to know and love its author? Jesus said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (Jn. 14:15,15:10). 1 John 5:3, “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grievous.” If keeping God’s commandments, instructions is hard, grievous, you have a problem. Search your own heart, “For out of it are the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh” (Matt. 12:34).

We recognize that it is only through the word of the Lord that we come to know, to understand, the Lord, but it is through acceptance of his truth that we come to believe, respect and love Him. John said, “We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us” (1 Jn. 4:6). “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God” (1 Jn. 3:10).

We can show our love and advance in love for the Lord by standing and meditating more upon His word (1 Tim. 3:15;4:15-16; 2 Tim. 2:14-15; Heb. 5:14). This is not meditation by reaching out into the great transcendental, mystical space of God’s unknown. “The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). Do you know Jesus to love Him and serve Him?

Guardian of Truth XXX: 24, pp. 739-740
December 18, 1986